Harvey Wasserman : Let’s Join Japan in Junking New Nukes

Workers cycle past a nuclear power plant on a tricycle cart in Changchun, in northeast China’s Jilin province, Dec. 17, 2010. Japan and Germany are limiting or phasing out reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima accident. Photo from AP.

We’re at a turning point:
Let’s join Japan
and junk new nukes

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / May 11, 2011

Japan will build no new nuclear reactors. It’s a huge body blow to the global industry, and could mark a major turning point in the future of energy.

Says Prime Minister Naoto Kan: “We need to start from scratch… and do more to promote renewables.”

Wind power alone could — and now probably will — replace 40 nukes in Japan.

The United States must join them. Axing the $36 billion currently stuck in the 2012 federal budget for loan guarantees to build new reactors could do the trick.

Wind potential alone between the Mississippi and the Rockies could produce 300% of the nation’s electricity. That doesn’t include solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, sustainable biofuels, and the many more renewable sources poised to reshape the American energy future once the prospect of new nukes is discarded.

Japan was set to build 14 new nukes before Fukushima. Six of Japan’s total of 55 reactors were shut by the earthquake and tsunami. Three at Kashiwazaki remain shut from the seven that were hit by an earthquake less than five years ago. Kan wants three more closed at Hamaoka, also in an earthquake/tsunami zone.

Japan’s reactor fleet remains the world’s third-largest, behind the U.S. and France. The General Electric and Westinghouse nuclear divisions, builders of nearly all the commercial reactors in the U.S., are at least partly controlled by Japanese companies. Reactor Pressure Vessels and other major components are built there.

Four California reactors also sit in earthquake zones vulnerable to tsunamis. San Onofre, between Los Angeles and San Diego, has 7.5 million people living within a 50-mile radius. Its two operating reactors and one dead reactor sit less than a mile from the high tide line.

Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, sits near a series of earthquake faults, including one newly discovered less than two miles from the two reactor cores there.

Numerous other U.S. reactors are perilously close to earthquake faults, including two operating at Indian Point, 35 miles north of Manhattan. The Perry reactor, on Lake Erie east of Cleveland, was damaged by an earthquake in January, 1986.

Massive quantities of heat have poured into the global ecosystem from the multiple explosions, partial meltdowns and spent fuel fires at Fukushima, contributing significantly to global warming.

Highly radioactive fallout has been found miles from the site. Millions of gallons of extremely contaminated water have poured into the ocean.

Radioactive fallout has also been detected in rainwater, milk, and on vegetables throughout the United States, threatening the health of millions of Americans, especially small children and embryos in utero.

Now Fukushima Unit Four appears to be on the brink of physical collapse. Fission may be continuing in at least one spent fuel pool, and possibly in one or more cores. Radiation levels are high enough at the site to guarantee certain near-term death to workers, many of whom have come to consider work at Fukushima to be a virtual suicide mission. A definitive end to the disaster could be years away.

Kan’s decision to shut Hamaoka and then to cancel future nukes came as a shock. Widely criticized for weakness in the wake of Fukushima, he has now redefined Japan’s energy future.

Though dependent on imported fossil fuels, major Japanese corporations have substantial investments in wind, solar, and other Solartopian technologies. This will push them to the forefront of Japan’s energy future.

Likewise Germany. In the wake of huge public demonstrations and a major electoral defeat, Prime Minister Angela Merkel has shut seven old reactors and says 10 more will go down by 2020, making Germany nuke-free. For decades Germany has been pushing wind, solar, and other green technologies harder than any other industrial nation, with enormously profitable results.

In the U.S., renewables are also booming, while the reactor industry has been taking hard hits. Just this week a major French-operated component factory proposed for Virginia has been pushed back two years — which means likely cancellation. A $5 billion taxpayer-funded facility in South Carolina to produce plutonium-based Mixed Oxide reactor fuel faces a lack of customers, and growing doubts about the project’s viability or real purpose.

Overall, Fukushima has complicated an already dark financial picture. A Texas project meant for Japanese financing is now all but dead. So is one proposed for Maryland by the French.

While the Obama Administration continues to push for those $36 billion in loan guarantees, it’s unclear what reactor projects are in credible shape to accept them.

Meanwhile ferocious battles to shut old reactors in Vermont, New York, New Jerse, and elsewhere are heating up. With roughly two dozen of similar design to Fukushima Unit One now operating in the U.S., the public demand for more shutdowns continues to escalate.

We need to finish the job and get to a green-powered Earth.

Nuclear power makes global warming worse, and spells economic as well as ecological doom.

The industry can’t get private financing, can’t get meaningful liability insurance, can’t deal with its wastes, can’t compete in the marketplace, can’t guarantee us we won’t suffer a Fukushima of our own, can’t provide a reliable energy supply into the future.

What lies before us once we kill these loan guarantees is a Solartopian reality powered by the sun, wind, tides, waves, earth’s heat, and more.

Those countries like Germany, Denmark, and now Japan that head definitively toward a nuke-free future are in the process of turning toward survivability and prosperity.

Let’s kill that loan guarantee package, shut the dying nukes like Vermont Yankee and Indian Point, and join them in truly green-powered future.

[Harvey Wasserman’s most recent book is Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth. He edits the NukeFree.org website, where this article was also published. Read more of Harvey Wasserman’s writing on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

David McReynolds : The View From Over the Hill

The hill (and beyond). Image from Financial Samurai.

Do not be dismayed:
The view from over the hill

Even in defeat we are victorious, for we have given our lives a meaning others should envy. In struggling for something greater than ourselves, we will be transformed.

By David McReynolds / The Rag Blog / May 10, 2011

[On April 26, 2011, there was a book party in New York City for Martin Duberman’s double biography of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds, titled A Saving Remnant. (Read Doug Ireland’s review of A Saving Remnant on The Rag Blog, and listen to Thorne Dreyer’s interview with McReynolds and Duberman on Rag Radio.) The following article is based on remarks delivered by David McReynolds at that event and notes he made the next day.]

I’m reminded of the day, hitchhiking to UCLA from my parent’s home in Southwest Los Angeles, when I was picked up by a pleasant elderly gentleman with a head of white hair.

At the time I was involved in one of those affairs of the heart which wasn’t going at all well, and I thought, as I looked at the old fellow, how good it must be to be old, past the burdens of the flesh, able to enjoy good food and fine wines, visit museums.

Just then he reached over, put a hand on my thigh and said, “A tall young man like you, I expect you play basketball.” As I gently removed his hand and said I didn’t play any sports, I wanted to tell him that he had destroyed my illusions of old age.

In fact, in reading Marty’s book, which I felt treated me not only accurately but very gently, I sense I probably am less stressed these days than when I was young.

Certainly it is a great honor to find that while you are still alive you are subject of a biography — moreover, one which links you with that major figure of the last century, Barbara Deming. If I do not here deal with the issue of feminism, it is because Barbara dealt with it so well and I refer you to Marty’s book to get her views, with which I am largely in agreement.

It has been a good life in which, looking back, I am moved by the thought that at one time or another I walked in the company of giants such as Alvin Ailey, Norma Becker, Karl Bissinger, Maris Cakars, Sam Coleman, Dave Dellinger, Barbara Deming, Ralph DiGia, William Douthard, Peggy Duff, Allen Ginsberg, Gil Green, Arthur Kinoy, A.J. Muste, Grace Paley, Igal Roodenko, Bayard Rustin, Myrtle Solomon, and Norman Thomas. And was arrested with more than half of them.

I am deeply moved by those who organized this event and by WRL, which put up with me for nearly four decades, and the Socialist Party, which twice honored me with their nomination for President. Given the limits of time, I want to move directly to seven points.

First, do not be dismayed that we are in such troubled time. Large numbers of Americans seem impressed by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Donald Trump. Would you rather have found yourselves in a comfortable time when your voice wasn’t needed?

Think back to the other times we have lived through. The great war for Four Freedoms when we put Japanese in concentration camps on the West Coast. McCarthyism, when people were jailed for their political beliefs.

I remember, at UCLA, a group of us young radicals met at the beach shack in Ocean Park, 132 ½ Ashland Ave., for a serious discussion of whether we should not all leave for Costa Rica. One of us was taking flying lessons, and one of us was arranging for renting or buying a plane.

We voted not to go — though we were convinced we would all end in prison, as indeed some of my close friends at the time, Vern Davidson and others, did, for refusing the draft. Think of the fact that south of the Mason-Dixon line whites and blacks were separated on buses and trains, and blacks in the South had no vote.

Second, my life has been given to trying to find some combination of Marx and Gandhi. In this I have failed, but let me explain why that effort must continue. Do not blame Marx for Stalin, any more than you can blame Jesus for the Inquisition, or Gandhi for India s nuclear weapons.

Marx showed us that whereas in all previous times we had been the objects on which history was imposed, we now had the chance to consciously enter history as the subjects of it, who could act to change it.

It was Marx who taught us that the future is inevitable, is in our hands. Who helped us see how our consciousness is shaped by the class we are born into, the color of our skin, and, more than Marx realized, the sex we are given. It was Marx who suggested that the great issue is over who controls the means of production, whether they are in the hands of a few, or in some democratic way, in the hands of the many.

Marx came before the Russian Revolution. His vision was not that of the totalitarian state of Stalin, but of a broad and democratic society, one in which we could move from a society of need to one of abundance.

Yes, there were errors in Marx, a failure to examine the problem of the patriarchy, a failure to see the limits beyond which the exploitation of nature could lead to ecological disaster. But it was Marx who taught us we could take charge of our history.

Third, Gandhi gave us the solution to how we can engage in struggle without letting that struggle destroy us. In taking the path of violence, we find ourselves pitted against our brothers and sisters, we find ourselves dealing out murder in hopes of establishing the loving community, of building prisons in hopes we will find universal freedom.

It was Gandhi who reminded us that the means becomes the end. If your method is an organization which hates your opponents, so will the society you construct be shaped by hatred and not by compassion. I am not going to distance myself from those who are violent revolutionaries — it was Gandhi who felt that it was better to resist by violence than not to resist at all.

Pacifism is not for cowards. In fact, one of the main problems I had in becoming, or trying to become, a pacifist was that I knew I lacked the courage needed. In the end, looking back at a life in which I have suffered little for my beliefs, I conclude that God watches over atheists and cowards. We are not required to march farther than we are able, but to at least to take the few steps we can.

It was Gandhi who taught us a lesson which had been there all along, in the Gospels, in the teachings of Buddha, that there is a power in love, or, if you find it easier, the power of compassion. There are some few who we can be exempt from that command — Donald Trump has so much love for himself that he hardly needs mine.

But, friends and comrades, when A.J. Muste stood in a Quaker meeting during World War II and said, “If I cannot love Hitler I cannot love anyone,” do not think Muste was naive about Hitler. If we cannot find compassion for our enemies, we are lost.

Bayard Rustin explained it to me as the soldiers in a foxhole, when a volunteer was needed for an errand which might well be fatal, and the soldier who volunteered did so because, as he looked around at the others with him — one whom he knew was too terrified to make the run safely, one who had a wife waiting him, one who might falter because of an earlier wound — said to himself, let it be me. And all that pacifism does is extend that foxhole to include also the enemies.

David McReynolds at the 2009 Left Forum in New York City. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

This is not an easy teaching. But it is essential, along with Gandhi’s absolute passion for truth — for holding onto the truth, for basing his analysis on the facts, for being willing to change his mind. This passion for observing the facts and then reaching conclusions was something he held in common with Karl Marx.

The great light that helps us keep life in perspective is death itself. For there is an end for each of us, but not for all of us together, as a human race feeling its way toward the future. All that we really have along this path is compassion and truth.

Think of the power of the Southern Black movement, largely rooted in the Black Church, which not only gave us the blues and jazz, but the extraordinary power of revolutionary change through taking the risks of change through nonviolence. How lucky I have been to have seen a part of that light cast upon America.

Fourth, we are engaged in a struggle to empower the powerless. It has been said that power corrupts, and that is true. But it is easy for pacifists, most of us safely from the white middle class, to overlook the reality that powerlessness also corrupts. Our struggle is not to seize power and centralize it, but to decentralize it, to empower the communities and the people.

Power is a reality. The power to build railroads and dams, to find alternative sources of energy, to build housing for the poor. We want to eliminate the monopoly of power which exists today. The power to make war, to imprison the powerless.

I do not, I’m sorry to say, have the answers. At 81 it is enough if I can suggest the problems. It is clear capitalism has failed, that we have seen a steady, relentless concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, while the great mass have less economic security.

Fifth, we also need to struggle to take power away from those who have it. At the moment the United States is still the most powerful military force in the world. We have deluded ourselves with the talk of representing the free world.

What our military power has been used for is the defense of America s economic interests, and on some occasions, out of sheer folly and stupidity. We have in the past 50 years waged wars against nations that never fired a bullet in any of our 50 states or posed any real threat. Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan.

I do not defend those nations but only note our military actions cannot be justified by threats they posed to us. We have killed millions. And we have killed them with weapons created with great skill, from the drones that fly over Pakistan, to the pellet bombs used in Vietnam.

No other nation can match our record of slaughter in the past 50 years.

Sixth, we are truly two Americas. Both in the sense that the late Michael Harrington laid out so well, the nation of wealth coexisting with the nation of poverty, but also the nation of men and women willing to devise the arsenal of death so recklessly used by the elite which governs us, and the nation of women and men willing to vigil, to organize against, to suffer jail for, their opposition to this America of violence and death.

Remember, at this dark time when Donald Trump can score so well in opinion polls, that this is a nation which survived slavery, the Palmer Raids, and McCarthyism. Our hope lies in our willingness to withhold consent, to refuse to be frightened.

It takes courage to confront the worst of this nation and this world — the cowardice of a President, and a British Prime Minister and a French head of State, not one of whom has seen combat, to send others into battle in Libya — and yet to hold onto hope. Hope has been defined as the combination resulting from combining anger with courage.

Even to believe that in the hearts and minds of our opponents there is the possibility of change.

One of the lessons in the Gospels is that no one is beyond hope. Jesus, in his ministry, did not sit with us, but chose to sit with agents of the IRS, and the FBI, to break bread with the bigots. So let us, in our community work, not disdain our enemies but dialogue with them.

Keep in mind that the Tea Party folks are largely middle aged, almost entirely white and Christian, and confused to find their President is black, the Secretary of State is a woman, there is a lesbian commentator on MSNBC cable, and the society pages record men getting married to men, and women getting married to women. The reality is that in a short time whites will be a minority in this country. And there is great fear of this final shift in our nation.

Seventh, let each of us take on the task we can. We are not observers, but participants. That may not mean joining an organization, but it means realizing that organizations are needed. Your work may range from being a good parent – a work of great courage and skill — to being a good artisan or artist, or teacher.

But we are united in rejecting the assumption that the accumulation of wealth is the object of our lives.

And in this task of building a movement for change, let us build it based on the uniqueness of this country, and not on patterns others have set. The lessons of the Russian Revolution do not prove a guide for us. Gandhi’s tactics in India are not a guide to us.

Above, a group of protestors against the War in Vietnam, including David McReynolds (the tall one), burn their draft cards in Union Square, New York, November 5, 1965. (Left to right: Tom Cornell, Mark Edelman, Roy Lisker, McReynolds, Jim Wilson, and A.J. Muste.) Image from Ferment Magazine. Below, McReynolds at Armed Forces Day Parade, 1979. Photo by Grace Hedemann / Nonviolent Activist.

Remember that American socialism was a real force before the Russian Revolution and that the greatest example of nonviolence in this nation did not come from the white pacifists, but from the Black Churches in the South.

Eugene V. Debs is an example of someone who tried to shape a movement based on the exceptionalism of this country, as A.J. Muste also did. Remember, each country is unique and exceptional.

Finally, let me say that we really do not know if we will win or lose. That, depending on your philosophy or religion, is in the hands of history or of God.

But we do know that our lives are defined by having been part of the endless struggle. For Gandhi knew, and Marx knew, that conflict does not end. We can hope, in the words of the old joke, that when we came to this seminar we were confused and uncertain, but we are happy to say, on the conclusion of our weekend of study, that we are confused on a higher level and uncertain about more important things .

The joy of those who flooded Madison, Wisconsin, in the struggle for worker s rights; the joy of those who marched in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963, when the streets were filled with hundreds of thousands; the joy of the May Days in 1971 when 15,000 of us were arrested and tear gas floated over the city.

Those were great times — and better times lie ahead. Even in defeat we are victorious, for we have given our lives a meaning others should envy. In struggling for something greater than ourselves, we will be transformed.

And if I have not, in this speech, addressed the questions of gender and gay liberation, let me close by quoting my old friend, Allen Ginsberg, in saying, “America, I am putting my queer shoulder to the wheel.”

Postscript

Reading over these notes I am struck by omissions that were inevitable but need to be briefly discussed.

I do not think socialism must be Marxist . There is religious socialism, utopian socialism, libertarian socialism. I simply want to affirm the debt we owe to Marx and Engels. I do not believe Marxism to be scientific socialism. It is said that at one point an exasperated Marx said, “Thank God I am not a Marxist.”

Lenin, whose views I respect even though I disagree with them, was quite right when he wrote, “Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action.”

But what is socialism? What would it look like? Marx himself was vague on this, and what set him apart from the utopian socialists (who were not, let me note, without a value of their own) was his awareness that social change is a process, not a blueprint.

The closest he came to defining socialism was in his Critique of the Gotha Program. But even to take that up is to waste time — it was written long before the Russian Revolution, long before all of the trauma of the technological and cybernetic revolutions.

We can say that socialism is a way of organizing the economy so that the major means of production are socially owned and democratically controlled. We can say that great fortunes would be a thing of the past, that the huge concentrations of wealth as they exist now would end with estate taxes.

But we can also say that socialism does not mean there will be no small business. Ironically it is capitalism which has proven the great enemy of small business. Socialism does not mean your apartment or your home or your family farm will be seized, much less your toothbrush. Private property would not be abolished. It would be social property which would be dealt with.

Even this, however, requires a lot of new thinking. Our own society today has few great factories that can be turned over to the workers. To a great extent we have become a society of service industries. Ironically our farming is perhaps more collectivized (by large farming corporations) than was true even in the Soviet Union. Socialists might want to find incentives for the revival of family farms.

We can certainly look at the mistakes (and the successes) in the Soviet Union, of the social democracies of the Nordic countries, of Cuba, of China, etc. but we are so very far from having the political power to achieve socialism that it is pointless to waste enormous time now over debating the blueprints.

Clearly — because our survival depends on it — whatever socialism we struggle to create must have much more concern with ecology than the socialist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Economics, whether Marxist, Keynesian, or free market, is extremely complex and extremely unpredictable. What is clear, and has been clear for some time, is that capitalism is a failure.

This has been dramatically shown with the most recent collapse of the free market but it is also inherent in capitalism that human beings become commodities, that they are driven to compete, often wasting their lives in activity that has almost no social or intrinsic value (advertising, dealing in commodities, etc.). Capitalism produces a society in which authentic human freedom is hard to achieve.

Finally, the other necessary postscript concerns How. Not just what is socialism, but how do we get there. Marx thought socialism would come when in the final crisis and collapse of capitalism, the workers would seize power. He was sure that the birth of the new order would be bloody — and he had history on his side, since all other major shifts in how society was organized took place with great violence.

It was not that Marx hoped for violence, simply that he thought it inevitable. (And I might add that if one adds up the millions of lives destroyed in wars due primarily to capitalism, then the violence of revolution looks a bit different).

However the Russian experiment is instructive and tragic. Without trying to reprise that history here, the enormously liberating experience of the first years of the Revolution were replaced by secret police, prisons, brutal repression, and the hideous conformity of Stalinism. Even more sadly, with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc we have seen little remaining that is of value.

It is easy for the ultra-revolutionists to argue for a violent revolution, but I believe, with Debs, that if workers cannot learn to aim their ballots, they wouldn’t aim their bullets any better. Aside from which, a violent revolution inevitably falls upon the young and strong, while a nonviolent revolution is one in which all, young and old, weak and strong, can take part.

In the United States even Karl Marx had thought that it was possible for profound social change to occur through elections.

At this point there is no single party which represents democratic socialism. And we need to think less of parties in the usual sense than of organization, which can educate and organize demonstrations (and civil disobedience) as well as enter the electoral field.

There are groups today which might with profit work more closely together — the Socialist Party, Democratic Socialists of America, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, would be in this grouping. Nor would I exclude the Greens from dialogue. Nor would I exclude the Communist Party, which is going through serious internal changes.

A final word before the postscript becomes an entirely new venture rather than simply an effort to clarify. While I have no interest of any kind in the Vatican, one must remember figures such as Pope John XXIII, Dorothy Day, the quiet revolutionaries of the Catholic Worker — and of other Christian groups.

And if one despairs at much of the Jewish community for its rigid approach to issues such as Palestinian rights, there are groups such as Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (as well as several others working for peace in the Middle East) which remind us that a rigidly atheist socialist movement will pointlessly isolate itself. Judaism, more than most religions, is based on the concept of law and community.

Marx represented, I realize, an atheist approach to society, and as such he was the enemy not only of capital but of all religious bodies. But Marx was not, himself, a God. On the contrary he dealt with contradictions, as did Gandhi. It may baffle the orthodox mind, but it is quite possible to embrace a generally Marxian approach and also a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic set of beliefs.

Let those who would be offended by this willingness to link spiritual values with material struggle be offended — it is still possible and needs to be said.

Finally, pacifists must not simply resist violence, but seek to build a society which does not treat people violently. If we are not inherently a philosophy of radical social change, I think we have little value. But if we make ourselves a part of a broader movement, most of which may well not be pacifist, we can help to resolve the conflicts, and make dialogue an alternative to endless fracturing and splits.

We may, as people committed to reconciliation, shy from the terrible reality of the class struggle, but there is indeed a class struggle or class war, and as Warren Buffet said, “There is a class war and my class is winning it” (and he wasn’t happy about it — the concentration of economic power in so few hands is profoundly alien to democracy).

The only people who don’t know there is a class war are those at a safe distance from it. Think of it as a war against injustice, but it is real, and we must take our part in it.

A final point (like all radicals, one’s final point is never quite final) concerns State and Government. They are confused by most people who view socialism as the State taking charge of their lives.

There is a crucial difference between the State, which has the power to wage wars and to execute people, and the Government, which collects garbage, educates our children, maintains public safety, builds bridges, and in many other ways does those things which individuals alone cannot do, and which we do not feel comfortable having done for a profit.

Governments can be very decentralized, States tend to seek an absolute monopoly of power. I would hope the democratic socialism we seek is one of diffused power.

(Now you may think this is the end. And it is.)

[David McReynolds is a former chair of War Resisters International, and was the Socialist Party candidate for President in 1980 and 2000. He is retired and lives with two cats on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He posts at Edge Left and can be reached at dmcreynolds@nyc.rr.com. Read more articles by David McReynolds on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Sue Katz : May Day in Vermont

Poet Verandah Porche (left) and author Sue Katz. Photos from Sue Katz, Barry Hock, and Consenting Adult.

May Day in Vermont

By Sue Katz / The Rag Blog / May 10, 2011

I think you’ll get some enjoyment from reading this by Sue Katz, one of my friends from the “old days,” a contributor to the anthology Out of the Closets, and a woman with a lovely checkered past and present (and future!).

I was present at this gathering, too, on April 30, a day short of May Day.

What Sue doesn’t mention is that this is the Packers Corners commune, founded in 1968, one of the pioneering “back to the land” places in our region (about 30 miles from my house in Massachusetts). Many people present resided at the former LNS-MA (Liberation News Service) commune in Montague, Massachusetts, birthplace of the modern no-nukes movement.

The founders were mostly friends from Boston University, only a few years out of college. This is the place made somewhat famous by one of its former residents, Ray Mungo, who wrote about it in a book he titled Total Loss Farm. (His name for the farm, not the farm’s actual name.)

So many wonderful people, and a joyful atmosphere. Sad moments, too, remembering people who have died, including the most recent death (from brain cancer) of Tony Mathews, hippie carpenter extraordinaire of Gill, MA, [LNS founder] Marshall Bloom (I called out his name), Fritz Hewitt, Marty Jezer, and others.

Allen Young / The Rag Blog / May 10, 2011

May Day gathering at Packers Corners. Allen Young is third from the right.

PACKERS CORNERS, Vermont — Although I do not have the time for this, what with trying to get all my work done before my trip abroad, I am unable to deprive myself of my annual trip to Vermont for May Day. The event is held at The Farm, founded by my college posse in 1968, and overseen to this day by my poet darling Verandah Porche. (She’s in the red blouse and long skirt in the photos.)

I arrive on Friday afternoon in time to help unravel the silk streamers still wound tight around our May Pole since last year. We sit outside under the welcome sun hoping for a good day tomorrow, when people will come from all over the surrounding countryside and others, like us, from Boston.

Our main task completed, I take a temporary departure from Verandah to go just down the road to the 1840 home of my book binder friend Susan and my antiques expert friend Gilbert. They are putting me up and feeding and watering me.


“Feeding” is too pale a term for what goes on. We’re talking about delicious cheeses and dips to get the juices going and then a dinner of onion-stuffed roasted moist chicken, rich mashed potatoes, for which Gilbert is famous, asparagus that has been kept on ice until it is time to be cooked to an uncanny perfection, eggplant wraps smothered in tomato (from the garden) sauce, all followed by an exquisite apple pie (with ice cream), the top of which is swollen with crispy deliciousness.

Susan stands up to start to clear the table and freezes. “Everyone,” she says to us in a low voice, “stand up and be still.” We obey, looking out the windows overlooking the rear deck. They keep a bird feeder there, feeding to the tune of 10 pounds of black oil sunflower seeds per week, attracting an ornithologist’s wet dream’s array of birds.

But tonight that is not all the feeder is attracting. On its hind legs, a 300-pound black bear is sucking its dinner from one of the feeders. It sits on the deck on its fat butt, a luxurious fall of shimmery long fur cascading around its back, satiating a big case of the munchies. I am frozen. What do I know? I’m from Pittsburgh, for gawd’s sake. “Camera!” I yell, “someone get a camera.”

Gilbert meanwhile runs outside to have words with the bear, who does not seem to welcome confrontation. The bear returns to four well-padded feet and reluctantly, having been shoo’d loudly a few more times, ambles around the back to the side of the house and then up the lawn to cross the road. No one gets a photo in time.

Susan is unhappy that this beautiful creature has been chased away, while inside the house we follow our precious sighting of the bear by switching from window to window, circling the walls for the best view as the animal gracefully distances itself from us.

We sit outside on the deck around a fire pit on steel legs into which Gilbert feeds board after board to warm us up. Susan cannot get over the bulky beauty of the glorious animal and she and Gil reminisce about the time another black bear came right into their living room. Or was it this same one when it was younger? If so, she is so glad it has survived hunting season.

We turn in around 10 p.m. and sleep in the intense darkness that one only gets in deeply rural settings — and maybe dungeon cells. In the middle of the night there is a screaming crash of glass. I am startled awake and think that it must be a kerosene lamp and perhaps kerosene is all over the floor.

Within seconds the light comes on. It is Susan. I have figured out that some tossing and turning has shifted one of the four pillows sideways, knocking over what used to be a kerosene lamp and what is now an electric lamp, as I know so well, having turned it off when it was sleep-time. In bare feet, Susan tiptoes through the hunks of frosted glass, lifting what is left of the shade to a sideboard. She says that she and Gil were afraid that it was the bear, making its way back in.

We leave the glass with the intention of cleaning it up in the morning light.

Saturday

I wake early and sweep up the glass with a hand brush and dust pan. Gilbert is already preparing a scrumptious breakfast of eggs, sausage, sautéed potatoes and challah. Susan is dressing for her morning climb up the mountain with Verandah and I am checking my email.

Just before one we make our way to The Farm bearing contributions to the pot luck that precedes the annual May Day ceremony. Happily I meet up with my dear niece, nephew, and grandniece Sadie (otherwise known as Verandah’s daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter, respectively). Out of my little bag of treats, the beach ball is the biggest hit — once poor Matt depletes himself of oxygen blowing it up, and I actually get to play with Sadie, a rare treat for me.

The morning had started foggy but the sun clearly wants to participate in this day of joy and is now burning down on flesh made vulnerable by an endless winter. It is a glorious day — sunny but not scorching. As I explain to one new guest, a young guy, this particular May Day celebration combines three themes: the international day of worker solidarity; the pagan festival of Spring; and the celebration of the end of a harsh Vermont winter that can cause isolation as folks hunker down around their stoves.

I see old friends (like from the ’60s) and newish ones and once the many dozens of guests have cleaned their plates it is time to mount the mountain overlooking our once-and-future commune. One friend hoists the May Pole and many others grab one of the colorful streamers and up we go, followed by music makers and stragglers.

At the top, the May Pole is inserted into its usual hole and propped up until stable, so that the rest of us can wind around and around, weaving in and out, both clockwise and counter, to the tunes of Peter Gould’s hand accordion.


Once done, we stand and sit in a circle while the singing commences. The scope of talents and the range of union, worker, and sentimental tunes is startling, and the support of the amateurs by the professionals — like Patty Carpenter and Melissa Shetler — and Verandah Porche — is emblematic of the kind of supportive, collaborative community these folks have constructed.

As always, Verandah asks us to invite in those who have died — and people around the circle call out names of mutual friends and then individual loved ones. One guy calls out, “My parents!” — and dozens of echoes of “and mine!” reverberate from around the circle. We are orphaned, but we have each other and the generations behind us.

[Sue Katz is an author, blogger, journalist, unionist, and rebel whose rants and reviews are posted on her blog, Consenting Adult.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The view from over the hill

By David McReynolds / The Rag Blog /

[On April 26, 2011, there was a book party for Martin Duberman’ s double biography of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds titled A Saving Remnant. (Listen to Thorne Dreyer’s interview with McReynolds and Duberman on Rag Radio.) The following is based on remarks delivered by David McReynolds at that event and notes he made the next day.]

I’m reminded of the day, hitchhiking to UCLA from my parent s home in Southwest Los Angeles, when I was picked up by a pleasant elderly gentleman with a head of white hair.

At the time I was involved in one of those affairs of the heart which wasn’t going at all well, and I thought, as I looked at the old fellow, how good it must be to be old, past the burdens of the flesh, able to enjoy good food and fine wines, visit museums. Just then he reached over, put a hand on my thigh and said A tall young man like you, I expect you play basketball. As I gently removed his hand and said I didn t play any sports, I wanted to tell him that he had destroyed my illusions of old age.

In fact, in reading Marty s book, which I felt treated me not only accurately but very gently, I sense I probably am less stressed these days than when I was young.
Certainly it is a great honor to find that while you are still alive you are subject of a biography – moreover, one which links you with that major figure of the last century, Barbara Deming. If I do not, tonight, deal with the issue of feminism, it is because Barbara dealt with it so well and I refer you to Marty’s book to get her views, with which I am largely in agreement.

It has been a good life in which, looking back, I am moved by the thought that at one time or another I walked in the company of giants such as Alvin Ailey, Norma Becker, Karl Bissinger, Maris Cakars, Sam Coleman, Dave Dellinger, Barbara Deming, Ralph DiGia, William Douthard, Peggy Duff, Allen Ginsberg, Gil Green, Arthur Kinoy, A.J. Muste, Grace Paley, Igal Roodenko, Bayard Rustin, Myrtle Solomon, and Norman Thomas. And was arrested with more than half of them.

I am deeply moved by those who organized this event and by WRL, which put up with me for nearly four decades, and the Socialist Party, which twice honored me with their nomination for President. Given the limits of time, I want to move directly to seven points.

First, do not be dismayed that we are in such troubled time. Large numbers of Americans seem impressed by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Donald Trump. Would you rather have found yourselves in a comfortable time when your voice wasn t needed?
Think back to the other times we have lived through. The great war for Four Freedoms when we put Japanese in concentration camps on the West Coast. McCarthyism, when people were jailed for their political beliefs.

2. I remember, at UCLA, a group of us young radicals met at the beach shack in Ocean Park, 132 ½ Ashland Ave., for a serious discussion of whether we should not all leave for Costa Rica. One of us was taking flying lessons, and one of us was arranging for renting or buying a plane. We voted not to go – though we were convinced we would all end in prison, as indeed some of my close friends at the time, Vern Davidson and others, did, for refusing the draft. Think of the fact that South of the Mason-Dixon line whites and blacks were separated on buses and trains, and blacks in the South had no vote.

Second, my life has been given to trying to find some combination of Marx and Gandhi. In this I have failed, but let me explain why that effort must continue. Do not blame Marx for Stalin, anymore than you can blame Jesus for the inquisition, or Gandhi for India s nuclear weapons.

Marx showed us that whereas in all previous times we had been the objects on which history was imposed, we now had the chance to consciously enter history as the subjects of it, who could act to change it. It was Marx who taught us that the future is evitable , is in our hands. Who helped us see how our consciousness was shaped by the class we were born into, the color of our skin, and, more than Marx realized, the sex we were given. It was Marx who suggested that the great issue was over who controlled the means of production, whether they would be in the hands of a
few, or in some democratic way, in the hands of the many.

Marx came before the Russian Revolution. His vision was not that of the totalitarian state of Stalin, but of a broad and democratic society, one in which we could move from a society of need to one of abundance. Yes, there were errors in Marx, a failure to examine the problem of the patriarchy, a failure to see the limits beyond which the exploitation of nature could lead to ecological disaster. But it was Marx who taught us we could take charge of our history.

Third, Gandhi gave us the solution to how we can engage in struggle without letting that struggle destroy us. In taking the path of violence, we find ourselves pitted against our brothers and sisters, we find ourselves dealing out murder in hopes of establishing the loving community, of building prisons in hopes we will find universal freedom. It was Gandhi who reminded us that the means becomes the end. If your method is an organization which hates your opponents, so will the society you construct be shaped by hatred and not by compassion. I am not going to distance myself from those who are violent revolutionaries – it was Gandhi who felt that it was better to resist by violence than not to resist at all.

Pacifism is not for cowards. In fact, one of the main problems I had in becoming, or trying to become, a pacifist was that I knew I lacked the courage needed. In the end, looking back at a life in which I have suffered little for my beliefs, I conclude that God watches over atheists and cowards. We are not required to march farther than we are able, but to at least take the few steps we can.

3. It was Gandhi who taught us a lesson which had been there all along, in the Gospels, in the teachings of Buddha, that there is a power in love, or, if you find it easier, the power of compassion. There are some few from which we can be exempt from that command – Donald Trump has so much love for himself that he hardly needs mine. But, friends and comrades, when A.J. Muste stood in a Quaker meeting during World War II and said If I cannot love Hitler I cannot love anyone do not think Muste was naive about Hitler. If we cannot find compassion for our enemies, we are lost.

Bayard Rustin explained it to me as the soldiers in a fox hole, when a volunteer was needed for an errand which might well be fatal, and the soldier who volunteered did so because as he looked around at the others with him, one whom he knew was too terrified to make the run safely, one who had a wife waiting him, one who might falter because of an earlier wound, said to himself, let it be me. And all that pacifism does is extend that fox hole to include also the enemies.

This is not an easy teaching. But it is essential, along with Gandhi s absolute passion for truth – for holding onto the truth, for basing his analysis on the facts, for being willing to change his mind. This passion for observing the facts and then reaching conclusions was something he held in common with Karl Marx.

The great light that helps us keep life in perspective is death itself. For there is an end for each of us, but not for all of us together, as a human race feeling its way toward the future. All that we really have along this path is compassion and truth.

Think of the power of the Southern Black movement, largely rooted in the Black Church, which not only gave us the blues and jazz, but the extraordinary power of revolutionary change through taking the risks of change through nonviolence. How lucky I have been to have seen a part of that light cast upon America.

Fourth, we are engaged in a struggle to empower the powerless. It has been said that power corrupts, and that is true. But it is easy for pacifists, most of us safely from the white middle class,to overlook the reality that powerlessness also corrupts. Our struggle is not to seize power and centralize it, but to decentralize it, to empower the communities and the people. Power is a reality. The power to build railroads and dams, to find alternative sources of energy, to build housing for the poor. We want to eliminate the monopoly of power which exists today. The
power to make war, to imprison the powerless.

I do not, I m sorry to say, have the answers. At 81 it is enough if I can suggest the problems. It is clear capitalism has failed, that we have seen a steady, relentless concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few, while the great mass have less economic security.

Fifth, we also need to struggle to take power away from those who have it. At the moment the United States is still the most powerful military force in the world. We have deluded ourselves.

4. With the talk of representing the free world. What our military power has been used for is the defense of America s economic interests, and on some occasions, out of sheer folly and stupidity. We have in the past fifty years waged wars against nations that never fired a bullet in any of our fifty states or posed any real threat. Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan.

I do not defend those nations but only note our military actions cannot be justified by threats they posed to us. We have killed millions. And we have killed them with weapons created with great skill, from the drones that fly over Pakistan, to the pellet bombs used in Vietnam.

No other nation can match our record of slaughter in the past fifty years.

Sixth, we are truly two Americas. Both in the sense that the late Michael Harrington laid out so well, the nation of wealth co-existing with the nation of poverty, but also the nation of men and women willing to devise the arsenal of death so recklessly used by the elite which governs us, and the nation of women and men willing to vigil, to organize against, to suffer jail for, their opposition to this America of violence and death.

Remember, at this dark time when Donald Trump can score so well in opinion polls, that this is a nation which survived slavery, the Palmer Raids, and McCarthyism. Our hope lies in our willingness to withhold consent, to refuse to be frightened. It takes courage confront the worst of this nation and this world – the cowardice of a President, and a British Prime Minister and a French head of State, not one of whom has seen combat, to send others into battle in Libya – and yet to hold onto hope. Hope has been defined as the combination resulting from combining anger with courage.

Even to believe that in the hearts and minds of our opponents there is the possibility of change.

One of the lessons in the Gospels is that no one is beyond hope. Jesus, in his ministry, did not sit with us, but chose to sit with agents of the IRS, and the FBI, to break bread with the bigots. So let us, in our community work, not disdain our enemies but dialogue with them. Keep in mind that the Tea Party folks are largely middle aged, almost entirely white and Christian and confused to find their President is black, the Secretary of State is a woman, there is a lesbian commentator on MSNBC cable, and the society pages record men getting married to men, and women getting married to women. The reality is that in a short time whites will be a minority in this country. And there is great fear of this final shift in our nation.

Seventh, let each of us take on the task we can. We are not observers, but participants. That may not mean joining an organization, but it means realizing that organizations are needed – and you will find literature from several of them at the back of the hall. Your work may range from being a good parent – a work of great courage and skill – to being a good artisan or artist, or teacher. But
we are united in rejecting the assumption that the accumulation of wealth is the object of our lives.

5. And in this task of building a movement for change, let us build on based on the uniqueness of this country, and not on patterns others have set. The lessons of the Russian Revolution do not prove a guide for us. Gandhi s tactics in India are not a guide to us. Remember that American socialism was a real force before the Russian Revolution and that the greatest example of nonviolence in this nation did not come from the white pacifists, but from the Black Churches in the South.

Eugene V. Debs is an example of someone who tried to shape a movement based on the
exceptionalism of this country, as A.J. Muste also did. Remember, each country is unique and exceptional.

Finally, let me say that we really do not know if we will win or lose. That, depending on your philosophy or religion, is in the hands of history or of God.

But we do know that our lives are defined by having been part of the endless struggle. For Gandhi knew, and Marx knew, that conflict does not end. We can hope, in the words of the old joke, that when we came to this seminar we were confused and uncertain, but we are happy to say, on the conclusion of our weekend of study, that we are confused on a higher level and uncertain about more important things .

The joy of those who flooded Madison, Wisconsin, in the struggle for worker s rights, the joy of those who marched in Washington DC on August 28, 1963, when the streets were filled with hundreds of thousands, the joy of the May Days in 1971 when 15,000 of us were arrested and tear gas floated over the city.

Those were great times – and better times lie ahead. Even in defeat we are victorious, for we have given our lives a meaning others should envy. In struggling for something greater than ourselves, we will be transformed.

And if I have not, in this speech, addressed the questions of gender and gay liberation, let me close by quoting my old friend, Allen Ginsberg, in saying America, I am putting my queer shoulder to the wheel.

Postscript

Reading over these notes I am struck by omissions that were inevitable but need to be briefly discussed.

I do not think socialism must be Marxist . There is religious socialism, utopian socialism, libertarian socialism. I simply want to affirm the debt we owe to Marx and Engels. I do not believe Marxism to be scientific socialism. It is said that at one point an exasperated Marx said thank God I am not a Marxist.

6. Lenin, whose views I respect even though I disagree with them, was quite right when he wrote Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action.

But what is socialism? What would it look like? Marx himself was vague on this, and what set him apart from the utopian socialists (who were not, let me note, without a value of their own) was his awareness that social change is a process, not a blueprint. The closest he came to defining socialism was in his Critique of the Gotha Program. But even to take that up is to waste time – it was written long before the Russian Revolution, long before all of the trauma of the technological, and cybernetic revolutions.

We can say that socialism is a way of organizing the economy so that the major means of production are socially owned and democratically controlled. We can say that great fortunes would be a thing of the past, that the huge concentrations of wealth as they exist now would end with estate taxes.

But we can also say that socialism does not mean there will be no small business. Ironically it is capitalism which has proven the great enemy of small business. Socialism does not mean your apartment or your home or your family farm will be seized, much less your toothbrush. Private property would not be abolished. It would be social property which would be dealt with.

Even this, however, requires a lot of new thinking. Our own society today has few great factories that can be turned over to the workers. To a great extent we have become a society of service industries. Ironically our farming is perhaps more collectivized (by large farming corporations) than was true even in the Soviet Union. Socialists might want to find incentives for the revival of family farms.

We can certainly look at the mistakes (and the successes) in the Soviet Union, of the social democracies of the Nordic countries, of Cuba, of China, etc. but we are so very far from having the political power to achieve socialism that it is pointless to waste enormous time now over debating the blueprints.

Clearly – because our survival depends on it – whatever socialism we struggle to create must have much more concern with ecology than the socialist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Economics, whether Marxist, Keynesian, or free market is extremely complex and extremely unpredictable. What is clear, and has been clear for some time, is that capitalism is a failure. This has been dramatically shown with the most recent collapse of the free market but it is also inherent in capitalism that human beings become commodities, that they are driven to compete, often wasting their lives in activity that has almost no social or intrinsic value (advertising, dealing in commodities, etc.). Capitalism produces a society in which authentic human freedom is
hard to achieve.

Finally, the other necessary postscript, is how . Not just what is socialism, but how do we get there. Marx thought socialism would come when in the final crisis and collapse of capitalism, the workers would seize power. He was sure that the birth of the new order would be bloody – and he had history on his side, since all other major shifts in how society was organized took place with great violence. It was not that Marx hoped for violence, simply that he thought it inevitable. (And I might add that if one adds up the millions of lives destroyed in wars due primarily to capitalism, then the violence of revolution looks a bit different).

However the Russian experiment is instructive and tragic. Without trying to reprise that history here, the enormously liberating experience of the first years of the Revolution were replaced by secret police, prisons, brutal repression, and the hideous conformity of Stalinism. Even more sadly, with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc we have seen little remaining that is of value.

It is easy for the ultra-revolutionists to argue for a violent revolution, but I believe, with Debs, that if workers cannot learn to aim their ballots, they wouldn t aim their bullets any better. Aside from which, a violent revolution inevitably falls upon the young and strong, while a nonviolent revolution is one in which all, young and old, weak and strong, can take part.

In the United States even Karl Marx had thought that it was possible for profound social change to occur through elections.

At this point there is no single party which represents democratic socialism. And we need to think less of parties in the usual sense than of organization, which can educate, organize demonstrations (and civil disobedience) as well as enter the electoral field.

There are groups today which might with profit work more closely together – the Socialist Party, Democratic Socialists of America, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, would be in this grouping. Nor would I exclude the Greens from dialogue. Nor would I exclude the Communist Party, which is going through serious internal changes.

A final word before the postscript becomes an entirely new venture rather than simply an effort to clarify. While I have no interest of any kind in the Vatican, one must remember figures such as Pope John XXIII, Dorothy Day, the quiet revolutionaries of the Catholic Worker – and of other Christian groups. And if one despairs at much of the Jewish community for its rigid approach to issues such as Palestinian rights, there are groups such as Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (as
well as several others working for peace in the Middle East) which remind us that a rigidly atheist socialist movement will pointlessly isolate itself. Judaism, more than most religions, is based on the concept of law and community.

Marx represented, I realize, an atheist approach to society, and as such he was the enemy not only of capital but of all religious bodies. But Marx was not, himself, a God. On the contrary he dealt with contradictions, as did Gandhi. It may baffle the orthodox mind, but it is quite possible to embrace a generally Marxian approach and also a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic set of beliefs. Let

those who would be offended by this willingness to link spiritual values with material struggle be offended – it is still possible and needs to be said.
Finally, pacifists must not simply resist violence, but seek to build a society which does not treat people violently. If we are not inherently a philosophy of radical social change, I think we have little value. But if we make ourselves a part of a broader movement, most of which may well not be pacifist, we can help to resolve the conflicts, and make dialogue an alternative to endless fracturing and splits.

We may, as people committed to reconciliation, shy from the terrible reality of the class struggle, but there is indeed a class struggle or class war, and as Warren Buffet said there is a class war and my class is winning it (and he wasn t happy about it – the concentration of economic power in so few hands is profoundly alien to democracy). The only people who don’t know there is a class war are those at a safe distance from it. Think of it as a war against injustice, but it is real, and we must take our part in it.

A final point (like all radicals, one s final point is never quite final). State and Government. They are confused by most people who view socialism as the State taking charge of their lives. There is a crucial difference between the State, which has the power to wage wars and to execute people, and the Government, which collects garbage, educates our children, maintains public safety, builds bridges, and in many other ways does those things which individuals alone cannot do, and which
we do not feel comfortable having done for a profit.

Governments can be very decentralized, States tend to seek an absolute monopoly of power. I would hope the democratic socialism we seek is one of diffused power. (Now you may think this is the end. And it is).

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Morning Gloria : Hasidic Rag Photoshops ‘Too Sexy’ Hilary From Historic Pic

Above, the photoshopped Situation Room image, as it appears in the Hasidic paper, Der Tzitung. Below, the original photo, sexy Hilary and all.

‘I’m too sexy’:
Hasidic newspaper photoshops
Hilary from Situation Room pic

“For those who thought mainstream press was sexist. Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung has photoshopped all the women out of one of the most iconic images of the decade: the national security team watching a live feed of the Osama bin Laden assassination.” — Personal Shoplifter

By Morning Gloria / Jezebel / May 10, 2011

Ultra Orthodox Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung is telling its readers like it isn’t — by editing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the now-iconic Bin Laden raid Situation Room photo. Oy vey.

The religious paper never publishes pictures of women, as they could be considered “sexually suggestive.” Apparently the presence of a woman, any woman, being all womanly and sexy all over the United States’ counterterrorism efforts, was too much for the editors of Der Tzitung to handle.

(Audrey Thomason, the counterterrorism analyst seen peeking out from behind another onlooker in the back of the original photo, was also airbrushed away, due to all of the sexy man-tempting that her very presence in a photograph would cause.)

While saving precious vulnerable men from being driven mad with desire over the image of a woman may be in line with Der Tzitung‘s editors’ ideas of piety, Jewish Week‘s Rabbi Jason Miller points out that the altered image violates a central tenet of the faith,

Der Tzitung edited Hillary Clinton out of the photo, thereby changing history. To my mind, this act of censorship is actually a violation of the Jewish legal principle of g’neivat da’at (deceit).

[This article was first posted at Jezebel.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Way We Were

By Chellis Glendinning / The Rag Blog /

I plopped down onto the sidewalk in the first row of cross-legged protestors, eye-level with the shin-guards of the first row of National Guardsmen. My hair dropped down my back in a braid, and I was wearing a shirt made of an Indian-print bedspread. The blonde next to me leaned over and disclosed that she was on acid, in fact that she took acid every day.

I know all the details because a photograph of us showed up in Newsweek a few days later: me, the acid head, the dudes with their gas masks and rifles. It was snapped by photojournalist Peter Barnes, who later broke from the “objectivity” of press work, wrote a book on the oppression of soldiers, founded the progressive credit-card company Working Assets, wrote some more books — and even later than that, by 20 years and wild providence, became lovers with the subject of his camera aim whose Indian-print shirt had long since shredded into compost.

Another photo appeared in that article about the rabble-rousers in Berkeley: a helicopter soaring between the Campanile and Sproul Hall dropping toxic CS gas into the plaza like it was Vietnam. Down at ground level people were screaming, fainting, falling down, blinded, retching, and the National Guard was advancing into the crowds cracking skulls with their batons.

My husband Bill and I somehow ratcheted our bodies away from the toxic clouds, into the cafeteria, down the spiral staircase of the kitchen, and out into the lower plaza. It was the first (and last) time I ever hurled a rock through a window, I was so appalled by the military exercise, and I wonder to this day whatever happened to the woman on acid.

The Third World Liberation Strike demanded that we students skip classes, so I regrouped in the Victorian house that Bill and I rented on Walnut Street, turned my attention to cooking Adele-Davis-style, shook my fist during protests against racism, played volleyball with my professor-pal Troy Duster and his social-science comrades… and quietly kept up with my homework.

I was taking The Sociology of the Family. At the end of the quarter, when I decided I’d hand in my paper on women in the Soviet Union and take the final so I could still graduate, the template was laid for a nightmare that plagued my dreams for decades after.

I nervously approached the lecture hall that I hadn’t stepped Swedish clog into for three months. To my terror it was empty. Abandoned, reassigned, unavailable, gone. No students. No prof. No sign redirecting the Returning Striker.

Panic emanated from The Sociology of the Family again when I sheepishly edged toward the departmental office to retrieve the paper and final exam I had somehow managed to hand in. I rifled through the pile to no avail: neither was there — and I felt as adrift as a hippie waif on Telegraph Avenue. I finally mustered the courage to ask the secretary, and she offered that I must be “the one” who was instructed to see the prof.

He had a beard and glasses (as if I even remembered what he looked like). With a stern voice he told me to sit down, and I felt the axe about to fall. He then smiled and explained that there had been only two A’s in the whole quarter… and they were my paper and my exam. It was hardly the moment to speak of irony, as he blubbered on encouraging me to pursue graduate sociology. I had a flare for it, apparently. Somehow the news was more stultifying than if he’d announced I’d been kicked out for fraud.

The strike was a raging success, laying the ground for what then became a norm in higher education: Black, Chicano, Asian, and Native American studies. I went on to write books that sprang from such experiences as our Third World Liberation Strike — and at least hinted that I might have kind-of taken some sociology classes.

I really can’t figure out how I have wrangled my way through this life, somehow doing the most out-there-outrageous things — and at the same time being so timid.

The Café Mediterraneum was clearly the place to hang out. Michael Delacour was always there in his pea coat, earnestly talking revolution. There was Moe, with his waning hairline and cigar. Marty Schiffenbauer with his shorts, combat boots, and curly red locks flying every which-way. Old Carroll, the ghetto astrologer. Street poet Julia Vinograd in her yellow cap.

It was all I could do to go in there, I was so nervous: the place was that cool.

It was where the hot-and-heavy political strategizing took place. Where the Red Family grabbed a break from haggling about who did the dishes in the commune. Where the seekers from Shambhala Bookstore talked Krishnamurti, astrology, and Tibetan Buddhism. Where Simone de Beauvoir mixed it up with Martin Heidegger. Where the espresso machine swooshed, Vivaldi’s “Primavera” echoed, and folks sported Mao caps. Where, for Chrissake, everyone smoked… Galoise.

I went, at first ordering cappuccino dusted with chocolate and toting the de rigueur blue pack of cancer sticks, later (after I launched a brief stint with a two-hour-a-day yoga-meditation practice), the far thinner rose-hips tea.

But I always felt a tad “thin” in the cool department.

I cottoned right up to the fashion side of things, though. I mean, how many cases of scabies can be traced to the ultra-wide bell-bottoms scrounged from piles of threads on the concrete floor of the San Pablo army-navy store?

As my signature, I donned the Pirate Coat I paid $15 for at the Paris flea market. Some days I boasted a green leather jacket hinting of London Mod, purchased at the hippest of boutiques, Red Square, and my closet burst with slinky 1930s dresses.

But maybe the finest of couture happened when we dressed up in garb appropriate to the film we were seeing: tux and gowns for Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers; trench coats for noir; boxy 1940s suits and spectators for Preston Sturges; kimonos for Rashomon.

Being in jail had its perks. Quiet time, good food, ample bedding, exercise, books for illumination, freedom to roam — they were not among them.

But it was a pre-feminist moment for us women to be together. I know now that we could have done things differently. There simply did not have to be that pre-midnight crescendo of panicked voices in a solitaire cell that some 100 women from the Mass Bust were now crammed into; we could have gathered into small groups to quietly discuss terror and claustrophobia. We could have been more supportive of our disparate needs. We could have meditated. Or done a ritual.

But what did we know?

We did know that the big bust was coming. Our own private rendition of Deep Throat within the police department had tipped us off, and a few had met in a living room just off campus to weigh our options. Tom Hayden was there. Wendy Schlesinger. Delacour. Bill Miller.

But somehow any planning we mustered had zero effect when the shit hit the fan and the cops cordoned off Shattuck Avenue, hemming in not just us anti-war protestors, but also innocent mailmen and shopping mothers. I was one of the Health Food 15. Guilty as all get-out, we had rushed into Goodson’s, grabbed wire shopping baskets, and pretended to be buying organic oatmeal — but sure enough, a policeman emerged tall and angry through the back door and rounded us up for the bus ride to Santa Rita Detention Center.

Knowing it was coming, I had made my own plan for bail. It’s not a plan that — what with post-9-11 paranoia — would fly today, but it did back then. I had hand-penned a letter to Wells Fargo bank authorizing my commune-mate to take out $300 from my savings account, and when he showed up at the jail with papers for my release, I was never happier to see a parking lot.

The stories that came out of the men’s section were grim. While we women had had the freedom to fashion the plastic bags filled with Wonder-bread-bologna sandwiches into “volleyballs” for our nervous amusement, the men had been jammed face down in the yard and made to lie there without flinching through the night. One had his head tied to an iron pipe, and an officer had banged the pipe till blood gushed from his eyes, nose, and mouth.

In the end, the Health Food 15 got off through the efforts of our pro-bono lawyer, Bob Treuhaft. And in the end, the perk was seeing the system from the inside out.

In their humongous leather jackets, the Black Panthers came on as fierce as the police they were bucking. One day a militaristic line-up of them made the trek from downtown Oakland to hold forth at the noon rally in Sproul Plaza.

Their message was kind of confusing to those of us who had grown up on “We Shall Overcome” and sharpened our political teeth in the South during Mississippi Summer. Bristling with the radicalism of the international liberation/decolonization movements, the Black Panthers announced that the new revolutionary tack was to stand alone, Whitey not invited. At the same time, they demanded our support.

After that, a lot of interracial marriages broke apart in a frenzy of political realignment. Along with everyone else, I was reading Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, and Frantz Fanon’s notion of violence against whites as a cleansing act was flying through the halls of academia, so I wasn’t completely in the dark about rage, separatism, and self-empowerment.

Just then something began to appear in the dark, hung on a peg in the hallway of the apartment we shared with a university secretary, who was white. It was the fiercest black-leather jacket of all. Every time it was there, a heavy silence emanated from behind her closed door, and soon she began to show up in a black beret behind the card table, taking the money and handing out leaflets, at Panther events.

I could only think that she, among very few, had mastered the delicacies of white support.

I had no idea that we activists — sometimes amassed in crowds of 3,000, sometimes 100,000 – had, through the years of rampaging around campus and in the streets, developed an unspoken method: a way of forming, spreading, taking over the city, then dispersing, and finally re-congealing like a dance that was in our genes.

That is, until the neophytes arrived — which happened the summer after People’s Park when every Tom, Dick, and Hari Krishna east of Sproul Plaza decided that Berkeley was the place to hone one’s revolutionary skills. Suddenly, up against the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department “Blue Meanies,” the streets became a place of edginess, chaos, and utter lack of method.

I said, “To Hell With It,” and retired to my commune on Vine Street. It was a good time to pull back for a spell. The obvious next step was something akin to what we’d seen in the film Battle of Algiers, and indeed many in the New Left were joining gun clubs, just as some Students for a Democratic Society radicals back East were morphing into the Weather Underground.

Bill and I hightailed it to Europe, bought a second-hand Deux Chevaux in Amsterdam, and tooled at 40 m.p.h. through Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Andorra, Spain, and Morocco. When we got back and retreated to a maple-sugar farm in Vermont, sure enough, the FBI tracked us down and paid a visit to see what we were up to.

Things being as they were, Bill refused to ID any of the folks in the photos and told the FBI dude to shove it.

[Chellis Glendinning is the author of five books, including My Name Is Chellis and I’m in Recovery from Western Civilization. Her Off the Map: An Expedition Deep into Empire and the Global Economy and Chiva: A Village Takes on the Global Heroin Trade both won the National Federation of Press Women book award in nonfiction, in 2000 and 2006 respectively. She lives in Marquina, Bolivia and can be reached via www.chellisglendinning.org .

Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Lamar W. Hankins : Debating the Wrong Bin Laden Photos

Art from vectorportal.com.

Head of the snake?
Debating the wrong issues
and the wrong bin Laden photos

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / May 9, 2011

Without question, Osama bin Laden’s death was well-deserved, but there is more that we should discuss. I have tried to find the right metaphor to describe the role of Osama bin Laden within the criminal enterprise called al Queda. His death is not like cutting off the head of a poisonous snake. The snake’s head is where the fangs are that inject the poisonous venom.

Osama bin Laden did not play that role with al Queda — he did not personally strike at people or targets, though he was a fighter during his Mujahadeen days on behalf of U.S. interests.

The death of bin Laden is much more like the death of the head of an organized crime syndicate. Normally, such a leader does not kill people or personally carry out violence. He makes known what he wants done, and others in the organization plan the work, organize it, give specific orders, collect the illicit funds, or eliminate whomever or whatever target he wants neutralized.

The organized crime metaphor is also fitting because what bin Laden headed was an organized crime operation that we labeled terrorism; but terrorism was not its purpose, it was its major tactic.

Many people experienced in intelligence and terrorism have argued persuasively over the last 10 years that al Queda should be fought with tactics used successfully against organized crime, rather than war, invasion, and occupation. The operation that resulted in bin Laden’s death was more like a sophisticated police raid against a Mafioso than a military operation, though reports indicate that it included mostly specialized military personnel, along with intelligence operatives.

Soon after the Pakistan raid was over and bin Laden’s death was announced, politicians and politicos began debating whether the administration should release photos showing the corpse of bin Laden.

Some argue that releasing the photos would upset Muslims, or at least jihadists, and lead to more retaliation against the U.S.; some suggest that releasing the kill photos would send a clear warning to other jihadists that they can expect the same as bin Laden got. I don’t care about either of these arguments because I don’t care about bin Laden’s corpse. What I want to see are the photos of the raid itself.

The photos of what the Navy Seals saw before bin Laden was killed would help answer many of the serious questions that have been asked about whether this was primarily an effort to kill bin Laden, rather than capture him.

I don’t take this position because I mourn for bin Laden. I don’t. What concerns me is the legality and the effectiveness of what our government is doing to address terrorism. The Seal raid was effective. Most of our other actions for the last 10 years have been less so. Whether it was legal under international and domestic standards is another matter.

Is it a good idea, or legally appropriate, to act unilaterally to send a raiding party into another country? Would another country with a grievance against someone in the U.S. be justified in sending a special operations team here to assassinate a person believed to have killed 73 people by blowing up an airliner, and to have committed numerous other bombings in Venezuela, the U.S., and other countries?

Such terrorist acts were committed by the late Orlando Bosch, identified by the FBI as a leader of a terrorist organization, who was given sanctuary by the U.S. for decades until his death a few weeks ago in Miami. However, no pictures will shed light on such violations of domestic and international law. What seems unarguable is that the U.S. sees itself above concerns about such legalities.

The former administration declared a “War on Terror,” which is an oxymoron because one cannot be at war with a tactic. Terror is a tactic. Unfortunately, this administration changed the rhetoric about our policy without changing the policy.

Our government continues to think in terms of Bush’s “War on Terror” because war justifies many actions that can’t be squared with fighting crime. For instance, if bin Laden posed no immediate deadly threat to Americans, there would have been no justification for killing him. Likewise, if he had been captured before being killed, there would have been no justification for his killing.

Taking bin Laden alive, if that had been possible, would have accomplished at least two things: 1.) skillful interrogation could have yielded valuable intelligence that would have saved lives; 2.) he could have been tried for his crimes and been subjected to a process not unlike that held at Nuremburg after World War II.

If Nuremburg was good enough for Nazi war criminals, it should have been good enough for someone like bin Laden. The importance of Nuremburg is that it stands for the proposition that some crimes are so horrendous that the nations of the world cannot tolerate or ignore them. This was a common view throughout the world about the 9/11 terror, but our subsequent actions diminished that view.

By dealing with crimes against humanity through due process and reason, the allies in World War II established principles that helped make our world more civilized, rather than more bloodthirsty, vengeful, and chaotic. My fear is that the supplanting of the rule of law engaged in by a succession of presidents at least since Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush’s virtual disdain for the rule of law, has been extended by Barack Obama in many ways, both domestic and foreign.

We still have Guantanamo, secret prisons in the Middle East, the torture of prisoners (both American and foreign), increasing drone attacks across international borders, the humiliation and killing of innocents throughout the world, targeted assassinations against even American citizens abroad, three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya), 820 U.S. military bases in 135 countries around the world, the PATRIOT Act, our continuing support — financial and military — of corrupt regimes around the world, and a staggering debt to cover the costs of all of these activities.

Dead or alive, what Osama bin Laden accomplished, and continues to accomplish, is changing the world-wide perception of the American character from somewhat benevolent to hostile and lawless. In response, our government has moved the U.S. toward bankruptcy (with the aid of our feckless political and corporate class) and reduced our freedoms in the name of questionable security.

As the foreign policy analyst John Feffer wrote about bin Laden’s death, “His assassination calls into question the adherence of the West to its vaunted principles of justice, much as the support for Hosni Mubarak and other Arab dictators called into question the West’s commitment to democracy.” The martyred bin Laden will continue to be a symbol of the West’s failure to live up to its professed values.

I would like to see the pictures leading up to bin Laden’s death so I can judge for myself the righteousness of our government’s action. I certainly can’t take my government’s word that what it did was necessary or right because all governments lie, as demonstrated by at least seven lies told by a government spokesman about the bin Laden raid. (See the article by Joshua Holland.)

If the Middle East changes for the better in my lifetime, it won’t be because of what the U.S. did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya — it will be because of the awakening (called the Arab Spring by many) that started in Tunisia, led mostly by young people who were not afraid to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their honor for freedom.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins. Read more articles by Lamar W. Hankins on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Ted McLaughlin : The Unemployment Monster

Political cartoon by Rodrigo / Expresso.

And the recession rages on:
The unemployment monster

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / May 9, 2011

The cartoon above may seem funny to a lot of people, but I suspect those would be people who currently have a decent job. For those without jobs the monster of unemployment is all too real (and very frightening). They know that looking for a job is much harder than actually working, and nobody lives large off an unemployment check (if they’re lucky enough to receive one).

The Labor Department released it’s monthly unemployment figures last week. The headline that most pundits want to talk about is that somewhere around 244,000 jobs were created in April (that fact is trumpeted in the first line of the report). But before you get carried away with celebrating this “good news” you need to know the rest of the story (and it’s not a pretty story).

Even though those jobs were created in April, they didn’t even make a dent in the unemployment rate. In fact, the unemployment rate actually climbed in April — from 8.8% to 9.0% according to the government. That means the unemployment situation got worse instead of better.

Consider the following numbers. The Labor Department says the number of unemployed people is currently 13.7 million. But that is just the number of unemployed people that the government could verify looking for a job in the last four weeks. They also admit there are at least 2.5 million people who are out of work, but have virtually given up and it could not be verified that they looked for work in the last four weeks (although that figure is just a guess and is probably much larger).

But just for grins let’s take the government figure of 2.5 million people “marginally attached” to the work force. Add that to the 13.7 million still actively seeking work and we get a figure of 16.2 million people who can’t find work. Then we have the people who are working part-time because their hours have been cut back or they can’t find full-time work (and all of these people would like to get a full-time job). There are 8.6 million of these people.

Add that 8.6 million to the 16.2 million and you get a better picture of the number of Americans who would like to have full-time jobs but can’t find any — and that number is 24.8 million people (between 16% and 17% of the workforce in this country). And there is little doubt that that is a low-ball figure (since the marginally-attached people are pretty invisible and very hard to count).

The truth is that the recession is still raging for working people and it got a little worse last month (in spite of the positive job creation). Now the economists say that an unemployment rate of about 3-4% is considered to be full employment (since there will always be some movement with people quitting jobs or moving and looking for new jobs). At 4% this would be around 6 million people. That means we have 18.8 million Americans (or more) who would be working if the economy was healthy, but are currently unemployed.

To show you how really anemic the creation of 244,000 jobs is, it would take 6.5 years to put those 18.8 million people back to work — and that is only if no new workers entered the job market in that 6.5 years! But since the unemployment rate went up even though 244,000 jobs were created, we can assume this number of new jobs didn’t quite cover the number of new workers entering the job market.

The sad fact is that it will take many, many years to put most of America’s unemployed back to work — and then only if the economy is booming (something we can only dream about right now). And if we continue to follow the Republican economic policies, the current unemployment rate might last far into the future (if it improves any at all) — because they and their corporate masters like the current situation (because desperate workers will accept very low wages and no benefits).

Some right-wingers will say that there are jobs to be had if a worker is willing to lower his or her expectations. Even that is not true. Consider what happened when McDonald’s (a company known for paying low wages with few benefits) announced they would be hiring thousands of new workers. Over a million people applied for those pitiful jobs — and about 62,000 people were hired. That means over 938,000 people couldn’t even get hired for that low-wage company.

And while the politicians talk about abolishing Medicare and Medicaid, cutting Social Security benefits, and slashing social programs (including food stamps and unemployment insurance) — while giving corporations subsidies and cutting taxes for the rich — there is absolutely nothing being done by the government to solve the jobs problem. Is it any wonder that ordinary Americans are mad at both political parties?

Don’t let the politicians fool you. The rich are doing very well, but the recession is still raging for most Americans — and it looks like it will be for quite a while.

[Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger. Read more articles by Ted McLaughlin at The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Jensen : The Job Formerly Known as Teaching


Delivering educational products:
The job formerly known as teaching

By Robert Jensen / The Rag Blog / May 9, 2011

Hi, I’m Robert Jensen, a provider of educational products to consumers at the University of Texas at Austin.

I used to introduce myself as a UT professor, but that was before I attended a Texas Public Policy Foundation session last week, offering more exciting “breakthrough solutions” to the problems of higher education.

At that session in a downtown Austin hotel, I learned that these very real problems — escalating costs and questionable quality of undergraduate instruction — can be solved in the “free market.” You know, the free market, that magical mechanism that gave us the housing bubble/credit derivative scam/financial meltdown. The free market that has produced growing inequality in the United States and around the world. That good old free market.

The solutions offered by representatives of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, and the Center for College Affordability and Productivity in the morning’s first session focused on ending public subsidies for higher education and treating it like any other business.

These insights come on the heels of the much-hyped “seven breakthrough solutions” that TPPF has been pushing. (Read about them here, and for a satirical treatment go here.)

Not surprisingly, both panelists spoke in the language of the market, turning education into a commodity. Panel moderator William Murchison, a conservative syndicated columnist, chimed in during the discussion, referring to “consumers of the educational product.”

I think that means students.

That pithy phrase led me to the microphone in the Q&A period, where I asked whether in this mad quest to turn higher education into a business the panelists might not be promoting efficiency so much as guaranteeing the final destruction of what’s left of real education.

I said that I found it difficult to understand my teaching — which focuses on how citizens should understand concentrations of power in government and corporations, and on how journalists should respond — as “an economic exchange,” in the words of Cato’s Neal McCluskey.

Both McCluskey and Matthew Denhart from CCAP responded with more of the market mantra and didn’t seem to recognize, or care, that commodifying education might have implications not just for how we organize institutions and evaluate professors, but for learning itself.

Denhart responded that the “product” doesn’t have to be solely job training, but would include instruction in “esoteric concepts.” Those apparently are the two alternatives in college classrooms: purely practical or interesting irrelevance.

That got me thinking about my favorite class, “Critical Issues in Journalism,” the large introductory course I teach in the School of Journalism. The course tries to examine — rigorously, but in plain language using clear concepts — the nature of democracy and the role of the news media.

My goal is to model the critical thinking that is crucial for citizens and journalists in a world facing multiple crises (political and economic, cultural and ecological) with dwindling hopes for a smooth transition to a just and sustainable future. Rather than accept the shallow platitudes of American democracy or the self-serving claims of American mainstream journalism, I encourage students to challenge the conventional wisdom (and me).

My students can speak to how well I do that, but my interest here is in how I understand the nature of what I do. When I think of when the class seems to work best — the moments that students seem to be most engaged with these crucial questions — it’s difficult to think of myself as delivering an educational product or of my students as consumers.

Instead, I’m happy with being a professor. I profess.

“Profess” can be used in different ways — to make a disingenuous statement (“He professed to like his boss”) or to announce religious commitments (“She professed her faith in God”). But I use it in the sense of making a public claim to knowledge, with an openness to respond to critiques of that claim.

When it really works, students not only listen to professors but learn to profess themselves. When it works, I’m just an older — and, one hopes, at least slightly wiser — version of my students.

That experience can happen in vocational training as well as in courses more philosophically focused. Good journalism writing teachers, for example, know the joy of professing the love of the craft and helping students discover that joy. The presumed division between training and intellectual work occurs only when teachers accept that false divide and abandon efforts to bring the two together.

I don’t want to appear naïve; I realize that much of what happens in American college classrooms (including mine, of course) falls short of these ideals on any given day. The question is not whether we sometimes fail, as we all do, but why failure sometimes becomes routine. On this count, ironically, I agree with some of the critiques coming from the TPPF.

After 19 years of full-time teaching at the University of Texas, I’ve heard a lot of legitimate student complaints about professors who don’t care about teaching. I’ve complained myself about the irrelevance and inanity of so much of the “research” produced in the disciplines I know in the social sciences and humanities.

I played that research game for my first six years to pass inspection and get tenure, but after that I dropped out of the scholarly publishing arena to concentrate on writing for a general audience. Shortly after that I stopped teaching graduate courses out of frustration with the self-indulgence of so much of the research/theory crowd in the study of media and mass communication. These days, I enjoy the challenge of connecting with undergraduates, writing about political and social matters, and speaking in public.

Let me be clear: This is not an anti-intellectual screed or an attack on systematic thinking and inquiry. I have learned a lot from the work of other scholars, which is reflected in the courses I teach, and such thinking and inquiry is more needed than ever to face these deepening crises. My writing for general audiences is rooted in research, defined more broadly.

But the critics of the university have a point. Increasingly, the academic game that most professors play is so self-indulgent that ordinary people — not just reactionary ideologues with libertarian fantasies — will not, and should not, support it indefinitely. Education is not a commodity, but economics are relevant in the sense that we don’t live in a world of endless resources.

But here’s where I part company with the critics: Instead of pretending to be able to measure faculty output and draining the life from teaching, we need to embrace the ideals of the university rather than capitulate to the false promises of failed market ideology. The obsessions with measurement and testing have nearly destroyed K-12 public education, and if applied to higher education it will have similar effects.

That model may be particularly attractive to those on the right precisely because it is so effective at undermining the kind of critical thinking some of us are trying to encourage in our classes. As U.S. society has moved steadily to the right over the past three decades, conservatives have been eager to eliminate the few remaining spaces in the culture where critiques of power — especially concentrated economic power in a society marked by obscene wealth and indecent inequality — can flourish.

Some parts of the modern university — especially those teaching business, advertising, and economics — are devoted to propping up that power, and much of the rest of the campus is not far behind. The corporatization of the modern university — both in internal organization and reliance on funding from corporations and corporate-based foundations — has done much to eliminate critical thinking that is connected to struggles for political and economic justice.

The victory of the market model would be the end of real education, if by education we mean independent inquiry into the power that structures our lives.

I’m encouraged that UT President Bill Powers — who appeared on the second panel of the day, and had to endure the self-aggrandizing ramblings of fellow panelist and TPPF Senior Fellow Ronald Trowbridge — supports faculty in this debate and recognizes the threats to academic freedom embedded in this market madness.

I have disagreements with the university administration about many things, but we faculty would make it easier for administrators in that debate if we not only press the institution to support us but engage in critical self-reflection.

In hallway conversations, faculty members will express frustration about bad teachers (though there is not always agreement on which colleagues are the bad teachers) who are allowed to continue to muddle along. Many worry that the demands for scholarly production have become so focused on quantity rather than quality that much of what is published in academic journals is of little value, even for specialists in a disciple.

Acknowledging these systemic failures doesn’t detract from all the good teaching done in universities, nor does it lessen the value of the important research of many faculty members. Instead, it should simply remind us that we owe it to the state, our students, and ourselves to confront these issues. If we don’t, the reactionary forces that increasingly dominate the culture will take care of it for us, and instead of breakthroughs in higher education we will witness an accelerating breakdown.

[Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. He is the author of All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, (Soft Skull Press, 2009) and Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing, which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist. Robert Jensen can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. This article was also posted at the Texas Observer website. Read more articles by Robert Jensen on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Harry Tarq : Learning What to Think

Still from One Dimensional Man / Find All Video.

Learning what to think:
We need to challenge how
most people think about the world

Ideological hegemony refers to the idea systems that ruling classes construct to create willing and pliant citizens in political regimes that lack moral legitimacy or economic rationale.

By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / May 5, 2011

I read about the dangers of federal deficit, the connection between markets and democracy, capitalist institutions and human well-being, insurance companies and quality health care, and the historic victories for peace and justice resulting from killing Osama bin Laden, and the son and grandchildren of Muammar Gaddafi.

I am reminded of Antonio Gramsci’s perceptive analysis about how people are ruled as much by what they learn to think and believe as by the use of force. Ideological hegemony refers to the idea systems that ruling classes construct to create willing and pliant citizens in political regimes that lack moral legitimacy or economic rationale.

I am also reminded of theorists from the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, particularly Herbert Marcuse, who wrote about how the fundamental contradictions in peoples’ lives — capitalists versus workers and rule by the few versus the possibility of the rule by all — are transformed into unanimity of thinking among people whose interests should make them adversaries not collaborators.

I thought that Marcuse’s postulate of a “one-dimensionality” in political thinking in the United States was exaggerated — lots of Americans, particularly the exploited and oppressed, identified far less with the United States in its war on the Vietnamese people than was believed. It was the lack of ideological homogeneity that exacerbated the campaigns of the ideological institutions — media, education, and political process — to try to construct it.

Ken Kesey, in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, used an interesting metaphor for society, a ward in an institution for the mentally ill ruled by a nurse who sought to dominate the patients through discipline, sedation, and the projection of the belief system that any independent thought was pathological.

Randle McMurphy: Seeing through the fog machine.

Somewhere in the novel Kesey refers to an ideological “fog machine.” The reader could almost feel how the patients of the mental ward experience the thick and blinding fog in the air hampering vision and even breath. Kesey gives the reader hope by describing the arrival of a new patient in the ward, Randle McMurphy, who sees through the fog machine and commits his life to helping his fellow inmates rebel against it. While he personally does not survive the struggle, some of the most docile of inmates escape, destroying the ideological hegemony of the system.

I am also reminded of the great Hoosier writer Kurt Vonnegut who describes an Indiana woman who roams through airplanes looking for Hoosiers. Vonnegut describes her quest as pursuit of a “false karass.” It is false because there is nothing about being a Hoosier that automatically leads to shared interests.

For years we have been sold an ideological package of lies. The recent rendition begins with 9/11. The world consists of large numbers of persons of color, especially Muslims, who want to kill us. We need to kill them first. Preemptive attack on those who we would expect to hate us is OK. International Law says so. U.S. diplomatic history says so.

Why should we be afraid? Why should we be prepared to kill? We must be vigilant because they hate our freedom. They want to destroy the natural evolution of societies from autocracies to market-based democracies. We must be fearful, vengeful, and ready to act for the benefit of the world.

Over the last four months, mass movements emerged projecting very different, even counter-hegemonic ideas about building a better world. Young people, workers, women, secularists, started going out in the streets in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain.

They demanded democracy and economic justice. They began to mobilize in public spaces, such as schools, union halls, and mosques and churches. They communicated via cell phones and sent messages in shorthand sentences and (to me) incomprehensible letters. The sun and warmth of the Arab Spring blossomed.

In very different places economically, politically, and geographically, the bitter heartland of America, revolt was stirred up as well: Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan for starters. Workers, students, women, political progressives, health care advocates, educators began to stand up and say “no” to the steamrolling right-wing political machine, now not too different from the historic “centrist” consensus in U.S. politics. Like their comrades, the heartland radicals too haltingly began to suggest that another world is possible.

So by May Day, what an irony, the United States carried out an assassination mission and killed Osama bin Laden. The media had already begun to salivate over the killings of Gaddafi’s family members. And stories about the need for deficit reduction continue.

For both Democrats and Republicans the problem is not capitalism, or neoliberal economic policies. No, for them the problem is government. The answer is compromise between a near draconian Obama plan and a right-wing proposal to eliminate most governmental programs, except for the military.

So the forces of ideological hegemony say we need to keep our guard up and be prepared to kill those who threaten us or who are claimed to be threats. Criminal justice systems and norms against violence are to be ignored. At home we must challenge the idea that government must serve the needs of the people.

We on the left must respond to the ideological crusade. While Randle McMurphy in the Kesey novel was a lone actor, progressives need to work together to challenge the fog machine. We need to convince our brothers and sisters that killing and capitalism are antithetical to human needs.

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical. Read more of Harry Targ’s articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Dr. Stephen R. Keister : Back from Break, Republicans Resume Assault on Poor and Infirm

The Republicans are back. Image from xrodgers / Flickr.

Renew attack on poor, elderly, infirm:
Republicans back from Easter break

By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / May 5, 2011

“Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.” — Adam Smith

I pen this over the Easter Weekend, the most holy day on the Christian calendar, when devout believers retreat to consider the basic tenants of the faith, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Beatitudes.

It seems that many of the Republican legislators have lost the spirit of the occasion and more likely have attended a black mass in preparation for their return to Washington to resume their attack on the poor, the elderly, and those with little hope. And perhaps — as part of their regressive anti-science ideology — they will nullify the pardons of Galileo and Copernicus and perhaps initiate an assault on Pasteur’s “germ theory.”

As Mark Twain, no great fan of Congress, noted, “Congressman is the trivialist distinction for a full grown man.”

On April 13, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund by a vote of 236 for and 183 against. This negated legislation that over eight years would provide funds to states and communities for preventive health care programs.

The same day, voting 189 for and 234 against, the House voted to defeat a Democratic amendment to keep the health fund in operation for the benefit of senior citizens. And, on the same day the House voted 235-193 against approving a budget that would privatize Medicare and raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and convert Medicaid to a block grant program run by the states and permanently extend Bush era tax cuts.

That same day the House voted 241-185 to remove funding from Planned Parenthood from the fiscal 2011 budget.

This is the Republicans’ first step in Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to finally eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, projects started during the presidency of the “sainted” Ronald Reagan.

The demise of Social Security has temporarily been put on hold while they dismember and destroy the health entitlement programs. There are various estimates available about the potential cost to our senior citizens. The proposal to privatize Medicare would, once in effect, provide the Medicare patient with a proposed $15,000 in vouchers annually but would not address what the individual should do once the voucher runs out.

Remember that coronary bypass surgery can result in a bill of somewhere around $100,000 — and there are available estimates (TPMDC) that it could cost $20,000 yearly to purchase private insurance! In addition, many of us forget that Medicaid not only pays for a degree of health care for those who cannot afford private insurance, but it pays for nursing home care for the elderly when their personal savings are depleted.

The alleged objective of all of this is to “balance the budget” — while nothing is done about restoring a reasonable tax rate to the very wealthy nor significantly reducing the cost of fighting questionable foreign wars and maintaining several hundred foreign military bases, many with 18-hole golf courses.

As a matter of fact, the Republican budget would further decrease taxes for the most wealthy 1% of the population while withdrawing a great amount of help to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly.

The vote on Planned Parenthood continues an out-and-out lie that that organization is primarily an abortion provider. Nothing can be farther from the truth. This is merely a symptom of the Republicans’ bigoted attitude regarding women that dates back to the Middle Ages.

Anyone who has read Silvia Federici’s Caliban and The Witch knows that in all this there is a deep-rooted feeling that the female is subservient to the male — and the attack on Planned Parenthood attests to this inner loathing for women.

Planned Parenthood was founded to provide birth control information to women, thus helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies that at the time of the organization’s founding could have led to “back-alley” abortions. Its purpose was to prevent the birth of children that families could not afford to take care of, children who would end up living in poverty, being abused by the unwanting parents, or ending up as wards of the state.

Planned Parenthood’s services include cervical cancer screenings, HIV testing, general health care, and, on rare instances, referral for termination of pregnancy if medical indications dictate.

The nation stands on the edge of a return to medieval times, a time of the two-class society of the baron in his castle and the serfs in their hovels — and the Republicans aspire to bring this about under the guise of national financial security. Perhaps the Republicans wish to be the Lord’s tax collector, each year presenting themselves at the peon’s farm, with swords drawn, to collect the baron’s taxes.

This said, even we progressives are aware of the excessive cost of health care in the United States compared to that in other developed nations. We are, first off, the only nation where health care is dominated by unregulated health insurance companies, a fact that adds 30-40% to the nation’s overall health care costs.

Another problem we face is the new concept of “concierge medicine,” where a physician limits his practice to several hundred patients a year, with a yearly membership fee of $1500. The concept is ideal, and takes us back to our own practices in the 1950s-60s, but we did not receive, let us say, $300,000 up-front! In those days there was no insurance and patients frequently left saying, “Doc, I will send you $10 a week.”

We also have the hospital-endowed medical practices, which I alluded to in a prior article, that charge for the physician’s visit and add an additional cost “for the hospital.” This, of course, does nothing to reduce health care costs.

I urge everyone to read this article on medical malpractice liability in Canada. It offers an excellent review of the often misunderstood Canadian health care system, and also shows how malpractice costs can be reduced for physicians.

Another reason that our costs are so high is the lack of primary care physicians. Let us look as how it was once was… I was a rheumatologist before I retired after 40 years of practice in 1999. When presented with a new patient with arthritis, of any of 20-30 varieties — after an hour’s interview and examination — I could have a correct diagnosis 90% of the time and was able to forgo a lot of expensive testing.

Our job then was to explain the condition to the patient, review treatment and its side effects, and obtain a minimum of lab work to appraise any side effects that might accompany the specific treatment to be used. From there on it was the patient and me — united in facing the rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, psoriatic arthritis, or scleroderma – whichever might apply.

Today, the physician’s schedule is overloaded (and many now close their offices at noon Fridays, and over the weekend the answering service refers patients to the ER for intercurrent care). A frequent visit for a new patient begins with the receptionist demanding insurance cards and ID, and the completion of a three-page history form. This is followed by a 10-minute visit with a physician’s assistant, a further 5-10 minutes with the doctor, and then referral for a plethora of lab studies, and very possibly one of a variety of scans that cost from $500-$1,000.

Instead of time, which if used correctly is reasonably inexpensive, we start with hundreds of dollars of testing that might well have been avoided. Then we are placed on absurdly expensive medications that cost two to three times more here in the USA than in Europe or Canada.

Of course, we must pay for the joy of seeing all of those pharmaceutical ads on TV. The United States and New Zealand are the only nations that provide their citizens with the joy of seeing all of this illuminating garbage. Further, we as patients, must indirectly pay for all of the often vulgar physicians’ ads in the yellow sections, on roadside sign boards, or in the local newspaper.

And we must carry the heavy costs of emergency room visits for ourselves, and for the multitude of those poor folks with no regular medical care who must resort to the very expensive ER care in time of need. The medical care system must pay the costs of palaces built by the for-profit nursing home industry to charge some $6,000 or more per month for our elders’ care when no other option exists.

Further, if one is sincere in adhering to the Hippocratic Oath, a physician is here to serve — but not to belong to the extremely wealthy sector of the community. This I referred to in my last contribution to The Rag Blog. Should we ever adopt a system of universal, single payer health care we could arrive at a fair and equitable system of physician payment. Please check out the suggestions of National Nurses United.

I have been asked how, with the fear of malpractice hanging over their heads, physicians can omit doing “necessary” studies. I recall advice from an older family practitioner when I started practice in 1950 (when malpractice insurance cost $75 a year!). He advised me: “Keister, always take time with the patients, and before they leave your office, be sure all their questions and anxieties are put to rest. If you are aware that you have made an error in treatment or management, fess up and discuss the matter with your patient.”

I listened, and practiced for 40 years without incident, and was amazed on occasion how forgiving folks could be. Malpractice costs, as many physicians argue, are partly caused by greedy lawyers. However, much of the cost is related to scams pulled off by the malpractice insurance companies, and by physicians who do not devote enough thought or time to patient care.

Instead of “cutting” reasonable costs, our leaders in Washington should start a government program of subsidizing the education of primary care physicians as is done in all other advanced nations. Perhaps, with an adequate supply of physicians, a reasonable reimbursement system, and a health care system akin to that in many European countries, and other nations like Japan and Korea, we can resolve this cost problem once and for all.

One final thought: Since the advent of medicine dictated by the insurance cartel in the 1990s, I have found it offensive that in their literature the physician is characterized as a “provider.” At the same time the patient is deemed a “consumer.” Dr. Paul Krugman addresses this issue in an article in The New York Times titled, “Patients Are Not Consumers.”

It is perfectly clear that the insurance industry considers the Hippocratic Oath passe and believes that the profits of the free-market should reign supreme.

[Dr. Stephen R. Keister lives in Erie, Pennsylvania. He is a retired physician who is active in health care reform and is a regular contributor to The Rag Blog. Read more articles by Dr. Stephen R. Keister on The Rag Blog]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Ted McLaughlin : For Massey Energy, Safety Fines Just a Cost of Doing Business

Image from BNET.

Cost of doing business:
Paying fines cheaper for Massey
than making the mines safe

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / May 5, 2011

“Despite the tragedy at Upper Big Branch last year… some still aren’t getting it.” — Joseph Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health

Last year (on April 5, 2010) there was an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. This coal mine disaster killed 29 miners, and has still not been reopened for mining operations (and is now probably going to be sealed off and never reopened). In addition to losing the mine the company (Massey Energy) also settled with the families of the dead miners for $3 million apiece.

A reasonable person might think that losing a producing mine and paying out about $87 million to the families of fallen miners would have taught Massey Energy a valuable lesson — that putting mine safety first would save both dollars and lives.

But it looks like that lesson didn’t register on Massey Energy. Forcing miners to work in unsafe, even dangerous, conditions is just the way they normally do business — and the payouts resulting from that are just considered the cost of doing business.

It turns out that in the year before the mine explosion (2009), Massey Energy had been fined a total of $382,000 for serious and repeated mine safety violations. And in the month before the explosion the mine had been cited for 57 separate safety violations.

It seems that paying fines for making miners work in dangerous conditions was just considered a cost of doing business for Massey Energy — a cost that was cheaper for them than actually making the mines safer.

This willingness to pay repeated fines rather than clean up their act is what eventually resulted in the deaths of 29 of their miners. (And believe it or not the Massey CEO received a $2 million bonus for the company’s exemplary safety record for 2010.)

Have they changed now that 29 of their employees were killed? Not even a little bit. Federal investigators from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) showed up at another Massey facility recently — the Randolph Mine in Boone County, West Virginia. The MSHA investigators found multiple safety violations that were “nothing short of outrageous” and posed a “serious risk” of fire and/or explosion.

Joseph Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, said, “Despite the tragedy at Upper Big Branch last year… some still aren’t getting it.” He’s wrong. They “get it.” They just care more about their profit margin than about the safety or lives of their workers. They’ll mouth the expected words about safety, and then continue to worry only about the bottom line (ever growing profits).

And Massey Energy is by no means the only corporation that cuts corners in safety to increase corporate profits. Another prime example is the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Transocean/BP cutting corners. That not only dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf, it killed 11 oil workers when the rig exploded.

The management of Transocean also received huge bonuses for “the best year in safety performance in our company’s history.” That’s corporate-speak for their huge profits are more important than the lives of 11 workers. Do any of us doubt both these companies are still cutting corners in safety to get bigger profits?

Far too often both the politicians and the general public buy into the public relations material put out by corporations — the stuff that says corporations have a heart or soul and want the best for their workers and their communities.

None of that is true. Regardless of what the Supreme Court may think, corporations are not people and they don’t have a heart. They are cold and calculating entities — with bank accounts, and the only thing they care about is making those bank accounts ever larger (regardless of how that affects their workers or anyone else).

Right-wing politicians would have us believe that the government and unions just get in the way of warm-hearted corporations, and if they were eliminated the corporations would be able to make a better world for all of us.

They are paid to say that by the very corporations they defend, but that does not make it true. The truth is that they care only for profits, and they will not share those profits with workers or spend any of it to create safe working conditions — until they are forced to do so.

That is why government safety inspectors (OSHA, MSHA, and others) and strong unions are both necessary. These are the only organizations that can protect American workers. They are the only organizations that can and will put pressure on corporations to insure safe working conditions.

Too often unions are portrayed as only caring about getting their workers large salaries, and it is true that getting workers a decent and livable wage is one of their purposes. But equally important are two other functions — insuring workers are treated fairly and insuring workers have safe working conditions. Government is necessary and does what it can, but unions are also needed to protect workers.

Corporations have the right to make a good profit, but they don’t have the right to do it at the expense of worker safety (and community safety). There is a happy medium, and it is the function of government and unions to help find it.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment